My partner and I stand in firm negation of the resolution: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East threatens our national security.
We would like to provide the following definitions:
Foreign Policy:The diplomatic policy of a nation in its interactions with other nations.
Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2012

The US currently faces many national security threats from the Middle East, however, none of these are caused by current US foreign policy. They are caused by U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East for the past
several decades" of support for Israel. As a result, the inherent distrust and hate that Islamic Middle East countries are not cause by current policies, and nothing we can do can change the way that that they feel. This is especially true because the media sources in other countries are biased toward the U.S. and the U.S. cannot combat this. Therefore, we do face many national security threats, but the Pro Side will be unable to link them to current U.S. foreign policy or show that U.S. foreign policy could be changed to solve the national security threats.
Contention 1: The US is distrusted by Middle East countries; and that distrust is shared globally.
Julian Borger and Tom Clark of The Guardian write on September 11, 2012:
American influence on the world stage is being sapped by widespread distrust of USintentions, not just in the Middle East and south Asia but also among traditional European allies, according to a survey of global opinions. Suspicion of America outweighed faith in its good intentions by large margins in the Arab world and Pakistan, and even its heavyweight European ally Germany was more sceptical than trusting, a YouGov survey found. British and French opinion was more positive but still deeply divided.Negative Arab and Pakistani perceptions of America as overweening and untrustworthy clearly pose a daunting foreign policy challenge for the Obama administration. The fact that 78% of Pakistanis questioned by YouGov said they did not trust America to act responsibly underlines Washington's serious lack of soft power in the region as it attempts to extricate itself from Afghanistan. The Jews and Arabs hate each other; this is a result of thousands of years of fighting each other. There is no one policy that the US can have that will undo thousands of years of history.
Zvi Bar'el, writes an article, poignantly remarks on the current attitude of Jews and Arabs in the Middle East in his article entitled "A good Jew hates Arabs" from August 2012 states:
Israeli "literature" promoting hate of Arabs predates the occupation. The children's book series "Danidin" by Shraga Gafni is full of expressions and illustrations that laid excellent infrastructure for Arab-hatred. The "Mikraot Yisrael" (Israeli Readers ) series, which helped educate hundreds of thousands of Israeli children, is striking in terms of the "incitement" concealed within it.Similar books published in the Palestinian Authority keep those who monitor Palestinian incitement very busy. But there isn't really a need to list all the recipes for Arab-hatred that have been fed to us, and which we developed on our own, in order to come up with a defense for those criminals in Jerusalem, whose "only crime" was to do what Israeli pedagogy and the "Death-to-Arabs" ethos directed them to do.This is an ethos that will continue to be an integral part of the Israeli-Jewish national identity, even if the occupation were to end tomorrow. Because "Death to the Arabs" isn't an expression of "routine" hatred of those who are different, or the loathsome slogan of some "price tag" gang. It does not resemble the xenophobia or the fear of Muslims that characterizes European racism.Hatred of Arabs is part of the test of loyalty and identity that the state gives its Jewish citizens. A good Jew hates Arabs. A loyal Israeli will leave an Arab to die, because "he's an Arab." And someone who isn't like that, as we know, "sleeps with Arabs."
The Israel-Palestinian conflict is a national security threat to the US. Bruce Riedel,
Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, argue in an article entitled Israeli Palestinian Peace: What is the US national security interest? How can it be achieved?
Middle East Foreign Policy Council, on January 20, 2011:
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a national security threat to America. Indeed, American lives are being lost today because of the perpetuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A peace agreement is a, if not the, key to achieving most of our goals in the greater Middle East. It is not the solution to everything; it is not a panacea. But that is an unrealistic standard. "Solving the Arab-Israeli conflict won't solve every problem between Morocco and Bangladesh" is, frankly, a stupid reason not to try to move ahead and solve it. This is a false issue, a red herring, if I've ever seen one. The reasons why this conflict is a threat to the United States are multiple. I'll start with a very simple one. If you believe that Israel is a national security interest of the United States and an ally and partner of America, as every American president since Harry Truman has affirmed, then a conflict that threatens Israelis every day must be a threat to the national security interests of the
United States as well. Because the US cannot solve the underlying source of hatred between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East, current US foreign policy is not responsible for undermining our national security. Therefore, the resolution is false.

Current U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East undermines our National Security

Resolved: The current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security. I stand on firm AFFIRMATION of this resolution.

I would first like to stat by defining a few words from the resolution.
The National Security Strategy, released May 27, 2010, lays out a strategic approach for advancing American interests, including the security of the American people, a growing U.S. economy, support for our values, and an international order that can address 21st century challenges. Also, the definition of undermine is to weaken or ruin by degrees.

Using these definitions, I will elaborate my points and show you how there is no other ballot but for the affirmative.

My first point is that Oil in the Middle East has been the cause of some major terrorist attacks.
We must all ask the question: If there were no oil in the Middle East, would we be so concerned with the region? Terror attacks that have been carried out to date on the oil infrastructure have clearly caught oil producers unprepared. For example, al-Qaeda"s February 24, 2005, attack on the Aramco facility in Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia, sent shock waves through the world"s financial markets all over the globe- not just the united states. This is especially not good for us because our national security is being threatened because of the war on oil.

Adding on to my first point, on the same day that Al-Qaeda attacked the facility in Saudi Arabia, the price of oil on international markets jumped nearly $2; despite the attack"s complete failure (the terrorists and two security guards were killed.)

Oil is a BIG part of our nation, no one can deny that. About 139,100,000,000 dollars worth of oil come from the Middle East per week. Within the past few weeks, the exportation of oil has become much, much harder- leading to prices going up. Recently, barrels of oil rose to 100$ per barrel. This can be seen when you look at our gas prices, which are at an average of 3.62 (10/23/12 Marylandgasprices.com). Whether you may think so or not, everything in our great country of America depends on gas prices. When gas prices go up, cost of shipping goes up- grocery stores, or any other store who gets products sent to them are raised. Our whole country will go into a state of inflation. This is not good at all.. How are raising prices good for our economy? If there wasn"t so much oil in the Middle East, then we would have no concern with the Middle East at all. My possible alternative solution is to get OUT of the Middle East and start using our refining our OWN oil. Gas prices will go down because we don"t have to pay to ship it over here. Isn"t that what everyone wants?

For my third point, coming away from oil, the Middle East is dangerous. This leads me to my final point; Our foreign policy has led to various accidents, or "Blow-backs," a term which is defined by Merriam-Webster as "unforeseen and unwanted effects, results, or sets of repercussions." The biggest blowback suffered is the fact that dangerous nations in the Middle East have stolen our weapons and technology, such as drones. Last December, Iran (One of the most unstable countries out there) captured one of our drones. They have refused to return it which has made many worry about the fact that weapons in the wrong hands could do considerable damage. In 2009 we invented the Stuxnet virus, which was used to break into Iran"s nuclear program. Iran, at this point, has no need for nuclear weapons and we fear that if they receive the technology for it then Iran will use it against us to destroy us; therefore, undermining our national security. Shortly after a twin virus called the Flame was launched on the Middle East, having an identical resemblance to the Stuxnet virus. A country in the Middle East stole our virus and is going to use the technology against us. Our current foreign policy has brought technology into the wrong hands where it can now be used to undermine our national security. The U.S. trying to help our own country is only bringing us down.

In conclusion, oil is a major problem when it comes to the Middle East, terrorist attacks have been made against our country since we started relying on the Middle East for oil, and the United States has suffered many blow-backs because of our relations with the Middle East. Clearly this is the wrong way to turn our country and we should no longer be involved with the Middle East. I see no other ballot but for the affirmation.

For my rebuttal, I will first tear down my opponent's points and back my points up.

First of all, my opponent's argument is based solely on quotes from reporters and regular people instead of hard-core information. Where's the facts? Where do your reporters say that the current foreign policy is being undermined? My The only thing that the opening statement included was talk about the Middle East and the conflict between the countries in that region. Nothing that included information about how the Middle East affects the United States.

In my oponent's conclusion, he states that since the US cannot solve the underlying source of hatred between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East, current US foregin policy is not responsible for undermining our national security. I cannot understand how the conflict between the Jews and Arabs affects the United States. Whatever those two countries have between each other is their own problem, not ours. We are not affected by their hard feelings towards each other.

Now I will back up my points.

My first point was that Oil in the Middle East has been the cause of some major terrorist attacks. When Middle Eastern countries are in conflict, then the war on oil causes gas prices to go up. The entire globe does NOT need gas prices to go up because the the cost of EVERYTHING will go up. One way you could say that this is undermining our national security is that our nation will continue to become more and more financially insecure. Another way you may look at it is to think that because the Midle East has their own conflicts, then our allies in the Middle East may call upon us in their time of need to help them with our their enemies. This puts OUR soldiers at risk and this also puts our taxdollars to waste. Our allies need to step up and find a way to to handle their own problems-without including us. We need our resources for our country.

My third point states that the United States has practically given the Middle Eastern countries technology to bring us down. This is completely undermining our national security. By us sending a drone into the Middle Eastern countries, they captured that new technology and is using it against us. Countries in the Middle East, especially Iran, may gain access to nuclear weapons that could completely wipe us out. That is my final reason as to why the resolution is true.

In conclusion, all I have to say is thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate and I have nothing else to say except to restate my points-

1. My first point is that oil in the Middle East has been the cause of some major terrorist attacks.
2. My second point is that oil is a BIG part of our nation.
3. My third and final point is that our foreign policy has led to various accidents, or "Blow-backs"

I would like to state that with these arguments, I see no other ballot but for that affirmative side of this resolution.